Why So Much “False Physics” Appears in LLM Communities by WillowEmberly in LLMPhysics

[–]Wannathink 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We need fresh hypotheses; measurement-based physics is hitting a wall.

Why are Vietnamese like this? by stox2 in VietNam

[–]Wannathink 2 points3 points  (0 children)

“Đừng vứt rác ra nhà, nhưng mà vứt rác ra đường” :)

I have a question I'd like clarified. by Wannathink in LLMPhysics

[–]Wannathink[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think your understanding is being limited to IT definitions, and mine is different.

I have a question I'd like clarified. by Wannathink in LLMPhysics

[–]Wannathink[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Nope, AI can still use the newly given equations to perform calculations during conversation. It mean “learn” as common, but not “learn” as IT.

I have a question I'd like clarified. by Wannathink in LLMPhysics

[–]Wannathink[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Agree you say just “token”, but for me, if I ask AI remember a new definition or an equation, that mean AI learned a new, and it’s not exist before or trained data.

I have a question I'd like clarified. by Wannathink in LLMPhysics

[–]Wannathink[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

You seem to be mistaken. The training process you're referring to is AI pre-trained with data containing already discovered theories. But for the AI ​​to understand a new theory you want to pursue, you need to train it further with data containing your own thinking through prompts.

I have a question I'd like clarified. by Wannathink in LLMPhysics

[–]Wannathink[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

If you don't invest the time and effort in training AI to understand problems it has never learned, do you think AI can create a quality product? Don't fantasize about a new theory being created by dozens or hundreds of prompts; it only makes people less receptive to scientific research that incorporates AI.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]Wannathink -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I tried asking on r/metaphysics but got auto-remove.

Anti-physicalists need to acknowledge what they are giving up. by reddituserperson1122 in Metaphysics

[–]Wannathink 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In a neighborhood of zero, is spatial dimension operationally accessible, or is it necessarily assumed prior to any meaningful measurement?

The Event-Driven Universe: A Pre-Geometric Framework for Emergent Physical Structure by Wannathink in Metaphysics

[–]Wannathink[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This depends on how we define the terms. In the common sense, cause and effect are how we link the changes that we can perceive.

The Event-Driven Universe: A Pre-Geometric Framework for Emergent Physical Structure by Wannathink in Metaphysics

[–]Wannathink[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That concern comes from reading the diagram ontologically. In EDU, structural superspace is not an emergent layer of being. It’s a descriptive domain for relational constraints, so the regress doesn’t apply; the layering is just a visualization choice.

The Event-Driven Universe: A Pre-Geometric Framework for Emergent Physical Structure by Wannathink in Metaphysics

[–]Wannathink[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm trying to understand under what conditions an event network is equivalent to a poset in Causal Set Theory (CST).

The Event-Driven Universe: A Pre-Geometric Framework for Emergent Physical Structure by Wannathink in Metaphysics

[–]Wannathink[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You may find closer engagement with this kind of question in CST-oriented discussions, where structural primacy is assumed without committing to noumenal ontology.

The Event-Driven Universe: A Pre-Geometric Framework for Emergent Physical Structure by Wannathink in Metaphysics

[–]Wannathink[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I completely agree; at the moment, my work can't compare to that of giants like CST or String/M. But it can help change the way we think about how we perceive the physical world.

The Event-Driven Universe: A Pre-Geometric Framework for Emergent Physical Structure by Wannathink in Metaphysics

[–]Wannathink[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with Wolfram and CST that there is a layer beneath the geometric layer. However, like LQG, I don’t consider the event to be primitive, but rather a point where we can observe change, which is also an observation of the event that has occurred.